Plan review process from designer perspective, submittal requirements, code interpretation, and appeals. Designed for architect and engineer education.
1
hours
0.1
CEUs
Administrative, Legal & Management
1.7.4
This course covers material relevant to the following ICC certification exams:
Plan review process from designer perspective, submittal requirements, code interpretation, and appeals. Designed for architect and engineer education.
Format
On-Demand Online
Delivery
Self-Paced
Access
24/7 After Enrollment
Certification
Certificate of Completion
Have questions about this course or our platform?
Contact our support teamUnderstand plan review expectations from building department
Architects and engineers who submit projects for permit are licensed professionals, credentialed through their state's professional licensure board rather than through the building department itself. Most states use the term "registered design professional," or RDP, for an architect or engineer licensed to practice in that jurisdiction, and many state statutes require an RDP's involvement — and seal — on the construction documents for anything beyond the simplest residential work, even where the adopted code leaves the exact threshold to state law. A single-family home is commonly exempt from that requirement in many states; a commercial building, a multi-family project, or anything involving structural, life-safety, or complex systems design typically is not. The building department does not license design professionals and has no authority to grant or revoke that license — its role is limited to verifying that the documents a licensed professional submits demonstrate compliance with the adopted code.
That division of labor defines the entire working relationship. The plan reviewer's job is to verify code compliance: does the design, as documented, meet the applicable requirements for occupancy, construction type, fire and life safety, structural adequacy, and the other subjects the code regulates. The design professional's job is everything upstream of that — the engineering judgment, the architectural concept, and the selection of systems and materials that accomplish the owner's program. Building Department Administration is direct on the point that a design's aesthetic qualities are not regulated by the code and should never be the subject of a reviewer's debate or negative comment; a reviewer who strays from code compliance into design preference damages the working relationship and the department's credibility in the same motion. The two professions bring different, complementary expertise to the same project, and the relationship functions best when each recognizes the other's lane rather than treating plan review as an adversarial gate to get past.
A newly licensed architect is preparing her first commercial submittal — a small retail buildout — and is unsure whether the jurisdiction requires a registered design professional's seal for a project this size. Rather than guessing, she calls the department's plan review desk before finalizing the drawings. The reviewer confirms that the jurisdiction's amendments follow the state licensure board's threshold, which requires a licensed architect or engineer of record for any commercial tenant improvement involving occupancy classification work, and points her to the submittal checklist covering what her seal must certify. The architect completes the design under her own responsible charge, seals the construction documents herself, and submits a complete package on the first attempt — avoiding the delay of a plans-examiner comment asking her to establish who the responsible licensed professional of record actually is.
The most common friction point is a reviewer commenting on something the code does not regulate — a material choice, a floor plan arrangement, or an aesthetic preference — rather than staying inside the code-compliance lane; the correction is training reviewers to frame every comment as a specific code requirement and the path to satisfy it, never a design opinion. A second mistake, on the design side, is a firm assuming a project is exempt from RDP involvement without confirming the jurisdiction's actual threshold, surfacing as a late-stage comment requiring a licensed professional to take responsible charge after documents are already substantially complete. A third is treating the relationship as adversarial by default — designers who arrive expecting a fight tend to get one, while designers who engage the plan review desk early, as in the scenario above, generally find reviewers willing to clarify expectations before submittal rather than after.
Code Reference: IBC 107 - The code establishes minimum requirements for plan review expectations from building department to ensure public health, safety, and welfare. Requirements vary based on occupancy classification, construction type, and building height and area.
Prepare code-compliant submittals
A professional seal is not a formality stamped onto finished drawings after the fact — it is the licensed professional's attestation that the work was performed under their responsible charge, meaning they personally directed, reviewed, and take professional accountability for the design reflected on the sealed sheet. Sealing documents a design professional did not actually direct and supervise — sometimes called plan-stamping — is a serious professional and legal violation in every state, precisely because it severs the seal from the accountability it is supposed to represent. The building department relies on that attestation; a reviewer verifies code compliance in part because a licensed, accountable professional has already certified the underlying engineering, not because the department re-derives every calculation independently.
Large or complex projects rarely have every component designed personally by the architect or engineer of record. Elements like roof trusses, precast concrete, curtain wall systems, or fire suppression layouts are frequently delegated to a specialty engineer employed by the fabricator or subcontractor, working under design criteria the design professional in responsible charge establishes — an arrangement commonly called delegated or deferred design. A deferred submittal is simply the delegated component's construction documents, submitted for review after the initial permit is issued rather than as part of the original submittal, once the specialty engineer's design is complete. The design professional in responsible charge does not disappear once a component is deferred; that professional reviews the deferred submittal for compatibility with the rest of the design — confirming, for example, that a truss package's actual bearing loads match what the foundation and wall design assumed — and forwards it to the department with a notation that it has been reviewed and found in general conformance. As covered in more depth in Structural Plan Review Basics for Non-Structural Reviewers, the department's job at that point is confirming that coordination happened, not redesigning the delegated component itself.
Special inspection follows a similar logic. For work the code identifies as needing independent verification during construction — certain structural connections, welding, or other work not easily confirmed after the fact — the design professional in responsible charge prepares a statement of special inspections identifying what needs to be specially inspected and by whom. The owner, not the department, engages the special inspection agency to perform that work, and the department's role is to confirm the statement is complete, that the agency and inspectors are qualified, and — much as it evaluates a product tested and reported through the process covered in Product Testing Standards and Certification Programs — that the completed special inspection reports actually support the compliance the design professional certified.
A mid-size commercial building permit is issued with the roof truss package identified as a deferred submittal, to follow once the truss manufacturer's engineer completes the design. Weeks later, the truss shop drawings arrive at the counter directly from the fabricator, sealed by the truss engineer but with no cover letter or review notation from the project's design professional in responsible charge. The reviewer declines to process the submittal on its own and instead routes it back, requesting the coordination review from the architect or engineer of record before it will be accepted — because accepting a deferred component piecemeal, without confirming the design professional in responsible charge checked its actual reactions and bearing loads against the wall and foundation design already approved, would let a coordination failure slip through undetected. Once the design professional in responsible charge reviews the truss package, confirms the loads are compatible with the approved design, and forwards it with a signed notation to that effect, the reviewer processes the deferred submittal against the rest of the approved documents.
The most consequential mistake is accepting a deferred or delegated submittal directly from a specialty engineer or fabricator without routing it through the design professional in responsible charge first — the correction is a firm submittal policy that deferred components are only accepted with the responsible-charge professional's coordination review attached, exactly as in the scenario above. A second mistake, on the design side, is a specialty engineer sealing a delegated component without a clear design criteria handoff from the professional of record, leaving loads or connection assumptions mismatched; establishing that criteria in writing before delegation prevents the mismatch from surfacing as a field problem. A third is treating a statement of special inspections as paperwork rather than a coordination document — a department that never confirms the special inspection reports actually came in before final approval has effectively waived a requirement it never intended to waive.
Code Reference: IBC 107 - The code establishes minimum requirements for prepare code-compliant submittals to ensure public health, safety, and welfare. Requirements vary based on occupancy classification, construction type, and building height and area.
Effectively communicate with plan reviewers about code compliance
Many of the delays and friction points design professionals report trace back to a single fix: talking before submitting. A pre-application or pre-submittal meeting, held before construction documents are finalized, lets the design professional walk the reviewer through an unusual condition, a proposed alternative approach, or a project-specific complication while there is still time to adjust course cheaply, rather than discovering the same issue for the first time in a formal correction letter after the documents are complete. Many departments offer this informally on request even where it is not a standard published service, and design professionals who use it consistently report fewer review cycles. Once formal review begins, the correction-and-response cycle is where the working relationship is tested day to day: a well-written correction identifies the specific code issue and what would resolve it, and a well-written response addresses that issue directly rather than arguing around it or hoping a different reviewer picks up the resubmittal.
Genuine interpretation disagreements are a normal, expected part of code administration — no two reviewers apply identical judgment to every ambiguous provision, and a design professional who disagrees with a specific comment is not being difficult by saying so. The professional path starts with direct conversation: requesting a meeting with the reviewer, laying out the specific code language and the design professional's interpretation, and bringing supporting documentation such as commentary, manufacturer listings, or prior precedent. Where the disagreement is really about whether an alternative approach achieves equivalent protection rather than about what the code text means, the code's alternative materials, design, and methods path exists precisely for that conversation — it lets a design professional propose a solution the prescriptive code did not anticipate and demonstrate, with supporting data, that it meets the code's intent. If direct discussion and the alternative-methods path do not resolve things, the formal board of appeals process, covered in Board of Appeals: Procedures, Participation, and Decisions, is the next and appropriate step — a technical forum for genuine interpretation disputes, not a venue for a disagreement that was never actually raised with the reviewer first.
The same professionalism runs in both directions. A plan reviewer's role is to verify code compliance, not to redesign the project — a reviewer who suggests how a design should be laid out, rather than identifying what code requirement is not yet demonstrated, has stepped outside the department's proper role, the same as a reviewer who recommends a specific private design firm or consultant, which creates an appearance of favoritism and a real conflict of interest. Consistent, impartial treatment — the same standard applied to every submittal regardless of who prepared it or which firm they work for — is what makes the review process defensible, and what design professionals report valuing most in a well-run department.
An engineer submits structural calculations for a renovation and receives a comment from the plan reviewer asking for additional information about the existing structure's load capacity — information the engineer believes is unnecessary for the limited scope of work involved. Rather than refusing the request or resubmitting unchanged, the engineer requests a short call with the reviewer, walks through the scope of work and the engineering basis for the calculations as submitted, and asks specifically what capacity information the reviewer needs to verify compliance. The conversation clarifies that the reviewer's concern is narrow — confirming the existing framing can support the new point loads introduced by the renovation, not a full re-evaluation of the entire structure — and the engineer provides a short supplemental narrative addressing exactly that question. The reviewer accepts the response, and the project proceeds without either party escalating a disagreement that direct conversation resolved in one call.
The most damaging pattern is silence followed by escalation — a design professional who says nothing when a comment seems wrong, then goes over the reviewer's head to a supervisor or elected official rather than raising the disagreement with the reviewer directly, burns the relationship even when the underlying technical point was reasonable. The correction is always the same first step: request the conversation before requesting anything else. A second mistake is filing a formal appeal as a first move rather than a last one, skipping the direct dialogue and alternative-methods conversation that resolves most disagreements without a hearing. A third, on the department side, is a reviewer who lets a code-compliance comment slide into a design preference or steers an applicant toward a specific firm — both undermine the department's impartiality and give a design professional legitimate grounds to push back. In every case, treating the other party as a professional peer with relevant expertise, and keeping the disagreement about the code section rather than about the people, is what keeps working relationships intact through inevitable disagreements.
Code Reference: IBC 107 - The code establishes minimum requirements for effectively communicate with plan reviewers about code compliance to ensure public health, safety, and welfare. Requirements vary based on occupancy classification, construction type, and building height and area.
This course provides comprehensive professional development in working with your building department for design professionals. Plan review process from designer perspective, submittal requirements, code interpretation, and appeals. Designed for architect and engineer education. Design professionals are licensed peers, not applicants to be managed — the department verifies code compliance while the registered design professional in responsible charge owns the engineering judgment behind the submittal, seals the documents that attest to it, and coordinates delegated components, deferred submittals, and special inspections back to a single accountable point. The relationship holds together through the same habits in both directions: talking before submitting, treating interpretation disagreements as technical conversations rather than personal ones, and using the alternative-methods and appeals processes as intended — a path to resolution, not a first response. The content emphasizes real-world application and the professional judgment required for effective, code-compliant design and construction.